[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hi Mark,

This is good. I can feel us both becoming more  coherent.  I can understand 
your frustration, this took a whole day to  respond to.  I hope you don't mind, 
but I've grouped the threads under  headings for the various things we are 
discussing.   

==SHOULD  WE USE THE TERM, CODE OF ART?==

Mark 15-10-06: 
Before diving into  this mess I wonder if a few statements can be made  
regarding The Code  of Art (COA)

Let's begin with Lila:
'Finally there's a fourth Dynamic  morality which isn't a code. He supposed  
you could call it a "code of  Art" or something like that, but art is usually 
 
thought of as a such a  frill that that title undercuts its importance.' 
(Lila.  
ch.  13.)
So, COA is:
Dynamic morality.
Dynamic morality is not a  code.

It is problematic to call Dynamic morality a "code of Art." I  suspect the 
problem with using the phrase COA is a cultural one; our (Western)  culture does 
not appreciate its importance.

David responds 16-10-06:
I  agree.
 
Mark 16-10-06: Hello David.
Fair enough.


----
<snip>

Mark 15-10-06: 
So,  COA is:
If this is so, why not abandon formulating a Formalised COA and  formulate a  
Formalised Dynamic morality instead, thus bypassing any  cultural blind  
spots?

David responds 16-10-06:
Because Dynamic  Morality is DQ.  DQ cannot be defined!  It is undefinable.  
I  dare not do evil and define DQ thus forcing it onto the SQ level. It's just 
 ugly. I shudder at the thought.  IMHO RMP created the term Code of Art to  
distinguish it from DQ to show in static situations that there is this thing  
called DQ.  So you can go. 'There it is among all the other codes; DQ  should 
be followed when possible'.
 
Mark 16-10-06: But if COA = DM = DQ that is precisely what you are doing,  
unless as you suggest, it's the conditions we're spelling  out.

----
David responds  15-10-06:
That DM works in our  culture, such as Democracy, doesn't mean  it 
necessarily 
has a  'prominent place' in our culture.

Mark 15-10-06: This sentence reads you  equate DM with Democracy. Democracy  
is DM.
However, if you are  saying, 'Democracy is an example of DM at work' then  
are 
you  saying:
1. Every time democracy is at work DM is at work, or
2. Democracy  provides the conditions for DM to work.
If 2 you agree with me don't  you?
Mark: 'I argue it (democratic institutions) provides good  conditions  for DM 
to be followed.' (Maxwell 2003)
By 1. To say  Democracy does not have a prominent place in our culture is   
ridiculous.
Therefore, to say DM on your terms, does not have a prominent  place in our  
culture is also ridiculous.
By 2. This speaks for  itself.

David responds 16-10-06:
Agreed.  The issue here is  really over whether we should use the term COA.  
I think we should although  there is a blind spot to 'Art', using the term COA 
specifically actually reminds  us of its importance.  That Art is not so 
popular these days, doesn't mean  that it isn't good, or that we shouldn't use it.

----

==DOES THE  CODE OF ART (WHAT MARK CALLS DM) REQUIRE FUNDAMENTAL 'CONDITIONS' 
FOR IT TO BE  FOLLOWED? ==

I've put below all my comments on statements of yours where  I see that you 
argue there are pre-set 'conditions' required for the COA to be  followed. Of 
course, I disagree.  You seem to argue that, starting with  experience as 
reality, without chaos and stasis, DQ as we know it would not  exist, because we 
would never experience it. I disagree with you on this  point.  The concepts of 
chaos and stasis are secondary to DQ.  I don't  argue that low quality static 
patterns aren't chaotic. Or that static patterns  can get too static.  But I 
disagree that there needs to be 'certain  amounts' of the two to reveal DQ.  (a 
few of my responses are similar so I  don't mind if you remove some parts.)   

2----

David:
Freedom, for instance, is hailed as the great  thing of Democracy.   
However, freedom as a negation of patterns,  is not the best thing.

Mark 15-10-06: What you are saying here is:  Freedom is relative to Dynamic  
response.
Negation of patterns may  be chaotic (this is where The edge of Chaos  
uniquely provides the  ontology to talk about relative Dynamic responses).

However, negation may  be similar to unity or coherence. Coherence is a  
relationship between  sq which, 'At this point, I intuitively felt patterns  
became 
less  differentiated though simultaneously retaining structure; hence  
avoiding  
the extremes of chaos and stagnation. This understanding had been  there  all 
along but had not sufficiently impressed itself upon me.'  (ibid)

David responds 16-10-06:
As you agreed a 'relationship between  sq is more sq'.  DQ just doesn't 
suddenly 'appear' when two static quality  patterns relate (causing more sq), what 
you have called a 'sweet spot'.  DQ  is fundamental.
 
Mark 16-10-06: I am certain DQ is pure empiricism. That DQ appears where it  
does is a reflection upon our static understanding. That's why Coherence is 
more  sq. But it may be a appreciable addition to our sq  understanding?

3----
Mark 15-10-06:
Having identified the  relativity of Dynamic response you may be able to  
understand why i  insist conditions have to be right for DM to be followed.

David responds  16-10-06:
IMHO, conditions are *always* right for the COA(DM) to be  followed.  If you 
like, let's say, as Every thing is after DQ, that when  something (a pattern) 
is good, it is coherent, when something (another pattern)  is bad, it is 
chaotic. This is part of the MOQ already IMHO.  This is one  of the benefits of 
your suggestion of coherence, and it does without this  hindrance IMHO, of the 
idea that we need to experience certain sq for experience  of DQ. Reducing DQ to 
sq like that is evil in the MOQ. I don't doubt for a  second that this is 
unintentional on your part.
 
Mark 16-10-06: Thanks for not attributing to be an evil. ;) Coherence is sq  
alright which gets me out of trouble.
I'm still not happy about your notion that conditions are always right for  
Dynamic morality.
Upon reflection, that is to say, upon reviewing our experience history, DQ  
may be seen to be more present under certain  circumstances.

4----

Mark 15-10-06: David: '...freedom as a  negation of patterns, is not the  
best 
thing.'
But apparently you  feel it is, 'radically good.'

David responds 16-10-06:
Everything done  radically, is made in the hope of goodness.  The results are 
what is  important, as said in my above  paragraph.


8----
<snip>

David responds   15-10-06:
Okay, if it makes it simpler for you, scratch trying. All are   following DM, 
whether trying or  not.

Mark 15-10-06: I think you  are incorrect to state, 'All are following DM,  
whether trying or  not.'
Mark 15-10-06:Since writing my response to this i realised that the  
conditions  are more 
than implicit, they are explicitly  stated:

"This division of all biological evolutionary patterns into  a  Dynamic
function and a static function continues on up through higher  levels  of
evolution.  The formation of semi-permeable cell walls  to let food in  and
keep poisons out is a static latch.  So are  bones, shells, hide,  fur,
burrows, clothes, houses, villages, castles,  rituals, symbols, laws  and
libraries.  All of these prevent  evolutionary degeneration.

On  the other hand, the shift in cell  reproduction from mitosis to meiosis
to  permit sexual choice and allow  huge DNA diversification is a  Dynamic
advance.  So is the  collective organization of cells into  metazoan
societies called plants  and animals.  So are sexual choice,  symbiosis,
death and  regeneration, communality, communication, speculative   thought,
curiosity and art.  Most of these, when viewed in a   substance-centered
evolutionary way are thought of as mere incidental   properties of the
molecular machine.  But in a value-centered   explanation of evolution they
are close to the Dynamic process itself,   pulling the pattern of life
forward to greater levels of versatility  and  freedom."

David responds 15-10-06:
Conditions for Dynamic  response do not share a sq and a Dynamic aspect.

Mark 15-10-06: Well, now  you've got a quote from Lila which tells you are  
wrong.

David  responds 16-10-06:
Conditions for a Dynamic response do not share a sq and a  Dynamic aspect 
because there are no 'conditions' required. RMP never says  conditions for 
Dynamic response share a sq and a Dynamic aspect.
 
Mark 16-10-06: The Lila quote above insists this is so. Here's an  
interesting quote from ch. 2 of Lila:
'Some of the slips were actually about this topic: random access  and
Quality.  The two are closely related.  Random access is at the  essence of
organic growth, in which cells, like post-office boxes, are  relatively
independent.  Cities are based on random access.   Democracies are founded
on it.  The free market system, free speech, and  the growth of science are
all based on it.  A library is one of  civilization's most powerful tools
precisely because of its card-catalog  trays.'
A Library has a sq aspect and a Dynamic function, and so too have the other  
examples given by Pirsig in this quote.
I ask you consider this carefully.

David:
That resulting sq patterns are more Dynamic and versatile  than others I 
don't deny.  That these patterns work with some of the more  static patterns which 
prevent degeneration I'll also agree on, as does RMP in  the paragraph you 
quoted above.     


7----
Mark  said:
As you can see, I argue the static social institution of American   
government 
provides the conditions for Dynamic response to increase, but it  can  fall 
away also. I do not argue Democracy is an example of DM. I  argue it  
provides 
good conditions for DM to be followed.   

David  responds 15-10-06:
IMHO these two sentences are one in  the same. According to  the MOQ if there 
are good conditions for  something good to be followed then, it will be 
followed.

Mark 15-10-06:  If this is so, all you have to do to formalise DM is  
formalise the  conditions.

The edge of Chaos DOES formalise the conditions:
'I felt  the MOQ would describe the sweet spot as a Dynamic event displaying  
 
high coherence within the static value levels between the extremes of  
chaotic  
disruption and static stagnation.' (ibid)
The conditions  for DM exist in relation to Chaos and Stasis.
(Ian 'psybertron' has made a  contribution here, which i think i've  
addressed, but it hasn't been  laid out in a paper yet.)

David  responds 16-10-06:
All I was  alluding to above was that in regards to The Code of Art, there 
are no  'conditions'. The COA is before all conditions.
 
Mark 16-10-06: Conditions = sq description of circumstances where DQ has  
been observed to operate.
I totally agree DQ is pure empiricism, but a formalised anything is dealing  
with sq. See?

9----
David:
Reality starts with undivided  experience. Before explanation and  before 
concepts of DQ. IMHO, trying  to 'explain how DQ comes about' does  not tell 
me, or 
anyone else for  that matter, what DQ is. DQ is before  explanation, it is 
the  
unexplainable. I don't know how else to put it to you,  because it is  Before 
explanation.

Mark 15-10-06: You've gone from contemplating the  conditions which appear  
to 
encourage DQ to DQ itself.

Mark  said:
Therefore, your statement  that, 'All are following DM, whether  trying or 
not' is facile. It is not always  possible to follow DM,  because the 
conditions 
for following DM are not  always  present.

David responds 15-10-06:
DQ is *always* present.

Mark  15-10-06: But the sq conditions to follow DM are not.

David responds  16-10-06:
There are no fundamental conditions determining whether DQ is  followed.
 
Mark 16-10-06: I think some have been observed and have even entired common  
language. That's what the sweet spot thing is all  about.

11----

David:
How successful/good at it we are will  result in better, higher, more  
Dynamic, sq patterns or not so good,  lower, more static patterns.

Mark 15-10-06: Ah. I see what you are  saying. You're saying DM is relative  
to sq.
This allows you to  argue the conditions for following DM are always  
present, 
even if  those conditions allow bugger all DM.
You use the same argument in democracy.  Mark above: What you are  saying 
here 
is: Freedom is relative to  Dynamic response.
This allows you to argue freedom is always present even if  there is bugger  
all freedom.
LOL
Lila: '...but art is usually  thought of as a such a frill that that title  
undercuts its  importance.'
Well, don't worry Mr. Pirsig, at least freedom and the  conditions for DM  
are 
present.
I'm imagining sitting in a  restaurant and being served two French fries on  
a 
plate. The waitress  observes my incredulity and says, 'Well? You DID order  
French fries  didn't you?'

David responds 16-10-06:
As I keep saying, there are no  'conditions' which allow 'bugger all DM'.  
All conditions allow for the COA  to be followed because conditions do not 
affect DQ. DQ is before conditions and  all static patterns.
 
Mark 16-10-06: Yes, it seems we've got to the bottom of this.
The conditions are observed AFTER DQ.
The conditions are sq.
This does not invalidate Coherence i feel.


14----

David  responded earlier:
Yes I agree,  exactly, 'poor  excellence' *is*  an oxymoron and that's why we 
would never say  Hitler was   following DM unless you were trying to show how 
bad at  it he   was.

Mark 15-10-06: So DM is relative, it can be good and it can be  bad.
We're back to your argument that DM is always being followed even  if  there 
is bugger all DM.

David responds 16-10-06:
Yes,  fundamentally the COA is always being followed. BUT, if the results of 
the COA  are bad, then from a smaller static perspective, the Code of Art has 
not been  followed.
 
Mark 16-10-06: This is what i am attributing to you. It sounds  contradictory 
to state DM is always followed but sometimes it turns out to be a  complete 
Hash.
I think it's better to observe the conditions which have shown DQ to shine  
and then formulate a sq description.
I feel the Edge of Chaos description takes into account all that is said in  
Lila about sq structure and Dynamic function.

18----

David:
The  wider consequences of degeneracy are ugly and chaotic as you point out.  
 
To be sure, in this case DM has not been followed well at all. (and  you  
wouldn't mention DM unless trying to show that DQ is everywhere,  like I am  
here!)

Mark 15-10-06: No one is denying DQ is always  present. As i said above,  
'one 
could define sq as, 'That which blocks  DM'
Hitler's social patterns blocked DM.

David responds  16-10-06:
Agreed.

20----

Mark  13-10-06: All this time  you've been formalising DM from a sq point of 
view  and it turns out  you're basically searching for what is said in, 'The 
edge of  Chaos.'  If you want a conceptual description of excellence then it 
has a 
name:   Coherence. But, Coherence is NOT DQ. Rta is. So, Rta is not a   
concept.

David responds 15-10-06:
What do you see as the benefit  of  coherence?  I agree with your conclusion 
from the  conference  paper:

"If we reject subjects and objects in this room  and wish to  replace them 
with a MOQ description of 
static  patterns, then we may be able  to state that relationships between 
the  
patterns themselves are
either  chaotic, coherent or stagnating  depending upon how they are 
responding to  Dynamic Quality."

If  something is responding badly to Dynamic Quality  then it is chaotic, if  
something is responding well 
to Dynamic Quality then  it would be  of high static quality(coherent). I 
don't see this as part of   Coherence however, IMHO the benefits you see of 
coherence, are already part  of  the MOQ.

Mark 15-10-06: I was hoping coherence as a relationship  between chaos and  
stasis may help us explore the circumstances under  which DQ  becomes 
influential. I was talking about this with my Uncle  recently - a  practising 
buddhist and 
the person who gave me my first  copy of ZMM - and he  suggested we only see 
these things after they  happen. I agree - Coherence  becomes part of our sq 
history.
If  coherence is part of the MoQ, then it is not explicitly stated.
I have often  felt it is implicit, otherwise it's an advance on the MoQ  
without  challenging anything the MoQ says.

David responds 16-10-06:
Even on  reflection, chaos and stasis are not required for DQ to occur.
 
Mark 16-10-06: No, Chaos and Stasis are not requirements. This is what  
happens to sq when DQ is being blocked.
The requirement for DQ is coherence.
Meditation increases coherence. As Coherence becomes ever more unifying DQ  
shines.


24----
Mark said:
Running around in a circle is a sq  pattern, and  if you do it well enough 
you 
will kill those patterns by  running a perfect  circle and reveal DQ.

David  responds:
I  agree. I call it  rta!

"There at the center of the most   monotonous boredom of static  ritualistic 
patterns, the dynamic freedom  is  found." -RMP

Mark  13-10-06: I call it  coherence.

David responds 15-10-06: 
As requested  above, please  tell me how I can benefit from coherence in my 
current understand  of  the 
MOQ.
>From your conference paper:
"So what use is coherence  if  it is simply an additional static description?"
And you  agree?

I do  too.

Mark 15-10-06: To put it simply:
1. RMP  defines Quality in terms of DQ/sq
2. Coherence defines DQ (or perhaps better,  the conditions for DM) in terms  
of sq -  Chaos/Coherence/Stasis.

David responds 16-10-06:
Again, there are no  conditions required for DQ to be followed.  These 
descriptions of sq are  okay however when Chaos is seen as a low quality spov, or 
even lacking in  quality altogether, stasis as the result of too much sq, and 
coherence as high  quality.
 
Mark 16-10-06: This is no reoccuring allot so it seems we've hit the source  
of a solution.
DQ is pure empiricism.
Coherence is a sq observation.
The thing is, once we have observed the circumstances under which DQ  shines, 
we can try to arrange them again. And this is precisely how we  learn!
We observe what works and then do it again.
In this sense, DQ draws us foreward.

21----

David   said:
I think your sounding like I was with that slippery word   'trying'.  I'll  
catch you on the same thing you did me  earlier.  DM has no effort  involved. 
 
We just follow it.  Emphasis on  just.

Mark 13-10-06:  I'm not having that David.  From, 'The edge of Chaos':
"If a pattern is in too  static a  relationship, it moves to the right and is 
evolutionary dead.  If   the pattern is in too unstable a relationship, it 
moves to the left. The  sweet  spot is postulated as a coherent state 
somewhere 
between these  two extremes. At  the sweet spot of Dynamic Quality (DQ), a 
pattern 
is  neither too static or  unstable.  It is here that a process is most  
efficient, art more beautiful  and life more serene."
The 'sweet  spot' is the excellent relationship the  Code of Art aims at. 
Masters  aim and hit with ease - they aim and hit without  trying. Those 
without  
mastery try when they aim and this is the source of   problems.

David responds 15-10-06:
Yes I was agreeing, Masters  don't  try, they don't do anything.

Mark 15-10-06: I would argue  this is so because they have encouraged the  
conditions necessary for  DM to be followed.
The conditions provide a steady aim.


David  responds 16-10-06:
There are no conditions. The only 'condition' which has  been encouraged is 
non-condition. It is the dissolution, silencing of  conditions(static pattens) 
through the perfection of them(rta).
 
Mark 16-10-06: More repitition of the problem/solution.
DQ is immediate experience, Coherence/chaos/stasis sq observations of what  
was happening when DQ has been most infuencial.
If DQ is most influencial after meditation or practice then it's sensible  to 
follow these precepts in a search for DQ.


10----  
David:
Point to a room where DQ is not present.

Mark 15-10-06: I  agree DQ is always present.

David:
Conditions for following DM are  always present.

Mark 15-10-06: This is where we disagree. In fact, one  could define sq as,  
'That which blocks DM.'
The way i have got  around this is an insight which said coherent  
relationships between sq  patterns open up to DQ.

David responds 15-10-06:
There is no sq 'way  around this' except for rta, which is no way, it is the 
'unwritten  dharma'.

Actually, on a small scale, we are perfecting patterns right  now.  We're 
going over each other ideas, over and over and over, again and  again and again, 
until we can get a 'complete understanding' on what is going  on.  At this 
point the patterned differences between us disappear and all  that is left is DQ. 

5----

David:
or when your just doing  something indescribably better (DQ).

Mark 15-10-06: DQ is 'just'  'something indescribably better.'
This is a complete shambles David. I'm  becoming quite disturbed that you  
have your hands on the editorial  controls of a public interface with the 
Public  
domain of  information.

David responds 16-10-06:
When you look at the world as  something which 'requires sq conditions', then 
the thought of DQ being something  indescribable could be quite disturbing.  
If your keen to find out what DQ  is, may I suggest you try a Zen Art, to See 
what It is?
 
Mark 16-10-06: I will dig out by bow.

----
RTA

You talk of  these conditions as though they are imperative to the greatness 
of the MOQ and  your concept of coherence.  Why is that?  I think it is 
because you  see yourself stuck behind all this sq and don't know how to get out. 
Your  solution is more sq. I'm offering you a way out.  It is through rta.   My 
understanding of the MOQ is that "We don't free ourselves from sq by coming  
up with other static quality, that is called bad karma chasing its tail, we 
free  ourselves from static quality by perfecting it and it's gone.  There in the 
 most monotonous boredom the DQ can be found." (RMP paraphrased).
 
Mark 16-10-06: That's exactly what was observed in many examples, including  
Zen arts, of the sweet spot.
In fact, i said in Liverpool 2005 that i was using the MoQ itself to  
describe Zen arts.
If you feel this is bad karma what the fuck are YOU formalising a Code  of 
Art for?
Don't start with that Dan shit David.

12----

David:
Of  course, that is not to say there won't be times when we cannot  see  DQ.

Mark 15-10-06: Like when there is too much static quality perchance?  And a  
corresponding reduction in DM methinks?

David responds  16-10-06:
I agree. When there is too much static quality this would be a time  when the 
light of DQ would be strangled.  To remove this, some perfection  
(dissolution), rta is needed of those  patterns.

13----

David:
Zen meditation or something of this ilk  helps to reduce these times through  
perfection of sq patterns(rta)  which reveals the DQ that has been there all  
along.

Mark  15-10-06: rta is not sq David:
'Dharma [rta] is beyond all questions of what  is internal and what is  
external. Dharma is Quality itself, the  principle of "rightness" which gives 
 
structure and purpose to the  evolution of all life and to the evolving  
understanding of the  universe which life has created.' (Lila. ch.  30.)

David  responds  16-10-06:
Sorry if it wasn't clear I should have used talking  marks or something, I 
said 'perfection of sq patterns'(rta).

On the next  page:
'..you would guess from the literature on Zen and its insistence on  
discovering "the unwritten Dharma" that it would be intensely anti-ritualistic,  since 
ritual is the "written Dharma." But that isn't the case. The Zen monk's  
daily life is nothing but one ritual after another, hour after hour, day after  
day, all his life. They don't tell him to shatter those static patterns to  
discover the unwritten Dharma. They want him to get those patterns  perfect!'
 
Mark 16-10-06: Ritual is mentioned a great deal in the Edge of  Chaos.

19----

David  said earlier:
I  Disagree.   I think that rta is a concept. Rta is the concept  of  
perfecting  static patterns at which point they disappear (DQ). It uniquely 
combines 
SQ  and DQ with no conflict.

Mark 15-10-06: If Rta is Quality then Quality is  a concept.

David responds  16-10-06:  Rta is the concept of  perfecting quality 
patterns(ordering them).    

>From Lila  p437, 
"The physical order of the universe is also the moral order of the  universe. 
Rta is both. That was exactly what the Metaphysics of Quality was  claiming. 
It was not a new idea. It was the oldest idea known to man."
 
Mark 16-10-06: I think what you have in your writing is Rta (Quality) and  
rta (sq).

----

ASIDE OFF TOPIC  ISSUES.


CELEBRITY

15----

David:
To be sure, my view  of Hitler is that he pursued degenerate  *static*  
social 
patterns  of celebrity.

Mark 13-10-06: But you've just stated, 'All  are  following DM, whether 
trying 
or not.'I agree Hitler was on a heavy  celebrity  trip, but that's high 
social 
quality for you. The wider  social  consequences of his trip induced chaos on 
a Continental scale.  Hardly a work of  DM.

David responds 15-10-06:
Celebrity has high  social quality, but  only on the social level.

Mark 15-10-06: I  disagree. The conditions for Celebrity quality are not  
always present.  This allows us to gauge response to DQ.

David responds 16-10-06:
What  is This?
 
Mark 16-10-06: Well, it follows from what i have said regarding the  
observation of past circumstances under which DQ is most influential.
Some celebrities wreak havoc and some unite  society.


16----

David:
Celebrity, according to the MOQ is  degeneracy.

Mark 15-10-06: From the view of the intellectual  level.

David responds 16-10-06: From the view of the MOQ. Celebrity is  unnecessary 
indulgence in static social  patterns.

17----

David:
Celebrity occurs when you mistake the  social level to be the highest of all  
and ignore other, better things,  such as intellectualising when they come  
along.

Mark 15-10-06:  Celebrity and intellect may coincide. Morality depends  on 
which is  dominating.

David responds 16-10-06:
I could agree with this.  

----

AIM

22----

David had said:
If you  want  to keep this word aims however, you could  say 

"DM aims  for DQ."  That way, as we both know, DQ has no  effort. If you aim  
at a static  pattern such as excellence, you'll miss DQ.

Mark  13-10-06: Stop a moment.  Who said Excellence is a static  pattern?

David responds 15-10-06:
I  did. Are you willing to take  it on board, put my hat on for a moment, try 
my  ideas out and see how  it fits?

Mark 15-10-06: I think I'm happy with my initial  response:

David responds 16-10-06:

RMP:
If you construct an  encyclopedia of four topics - inorganic, biological, 
social and intellectual -  nothing is left out. No 'thing', that is. Only Dynamic 
Quality, which cannot be  described in any encyclopedia is absent.

Seeing as though Excellence is  not Dynamic Quality, it is a pattern.
 
Mark 16-10-06: OK. Let's look at all this another way.
The encyclopedia is a list of 'things'.
But things are not so much things as events.
This may open the door for an ontology based on excellence. Excellent  
ontological events are coherent sq relationhsips.
The whole thing seems to turn on  relationships.

23----

Mark  13-10-06:
I suggest it is a  relationship between sq patterns. The 'Aim' is a  unifying 
process of  alignment if you will. The resulting relationship of the  
unifying  
process is a static description - it is by definition the 'best' sq   
relationship.

David responds 15-10-06:
A relationship between  sq  patterns is a pattern.  That's all patterns are.  
Relationships.

Mark 15-10-06: This is contentious. You may be  correct. If so, some  
relationships may be built on existing  relationships or modify existing  
relationships 
into coherence. I can  live with this. I've given it a great deal of thought.

David responds  16-10-06:

Agreed.

-----
CRITICISM

6----

David:
The  MOQ combines this language of the East with the language of the West   
brilliantly.

Mark 15-10-06: It may indeed do this but you're managing  to make it  
incomprehensible and confusing.

David responds  16-10-06:
I'm happy to accept this criticism but it certainly is not my  intention.

----
A warning, exams for me are coming up and I'm not sure  how long it will take 
to respond to your next post.  But I  will.

Phew,

Cheers.

David.
 
Mark 16-10-06: It seems a great deal of progress has been made.
I have the same comittments as yourself so it's just as well things have  
gone well!
Love,
Mark